Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 7

< February 6	February 8 >

February 7

Template:District data of Japan/figure

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:District data of Japan/figure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ok, following up from this TFD, we are at the next subpart. To save headaches, I would like to also suggest the deletion of everything in Category:Area of Japan. Basically, to update a simple one-sentence comment on what the population, area and density of Japanese districts are, someone would go from here (without documentaiton), go to, for example, Template:Area of Japan/Aichi again without documentation, and try to sort through the entire code (which is in Japanese). You can see from the actual markup at Aichi District, Aichi that we may need a bot or someone with code skills to fix this mess. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This Template:District data of Japan/figure and Template:District_data_of_Japan purposed to separate difficult codes from articles. but according to result of TFD, English wikipedia allows difficult codes to exist in articles. Japanese wikipedia avoids editor to confuse. So this template may not wanted.
Template:Area of Japan/Aichi purposed to reduce quantity of work, prevent neglecting edit, unify sources and date, calculate various numeric values. These templates are transcluded by thousands of articles in jawp, and update monthly. But in enwp, not often update. I just translated (ja:My Note). I entrusts enwp community to these template's future.--Knua (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All it does is output the text "As of September 1, 2008, the district has an estimated Population of 91,533 and a Density of 2,310 persons/km². The total area is 39.57 km²." There's not even a link to where the information is coming from. There has to be a better way to do this, or at least one where some of the documentation is in English. If people want to keep this mess, then someone has to document it and translate the code into English. The idea is fine, I guess, the implementation is a nightmare. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Innovator Merger

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Protonk (CSD G7).

Template:Innovator Merger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A request for speedy deletion of this template was denied. The template appears to be a misplaced comment made in template space. Farix (Talk) 12:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I don't mind if you delete it. Shaneymike (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Mph to kph

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mph to kph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

{{Mph to kmh}} (redirect page)

Poorly named & unused this template is redundant to {{convert}}. Delete it & the redirect. JIMp_talk·cont 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not just WP:BOLDly redirect it in the first place? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it wouldn't work. The syntax for this template is somewhat different from {{convert}}. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - redundant (and unused). Robofish (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nationfilmlist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationfilmlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only contains links to two articles,the category are just filler .The template was created during this discussion. Templates where created to a fill a need we don't have Gnevin (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't agree that there is no need, but I do think that templates like the ones here do a better job at fulfilling this need; although they aren't universal that is more appropriate as the articles, awards etc. dont follow th same patters for every country. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing personal against Grutness (I think I've got that right!) who created this template in good faith, but the TfD linked above was about the redundancy of those templates, and consolidating them into a single template goes against the spirit of that discussion. Personally I think the film list templates should be resticted to the likes of {{Americanfilmlist}} which are used to navigate between a series of national film lists. For anything else, i.e. the many countries for which we don't have a series of such lists, we have the nav templates in Category:Film country list templates which can do this job far better. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - well, if it's not useful, it's not useful. Fair enough. Put it down to a good exercise in trying to make a parametered template :) Grutness...wha? 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubts. Now the links are more than two. The reason was a discussion in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 12 that changed all the national film templates with this one. What should we do? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) --[reply]

Keep - the links to categories are a bit odd, but this seems acceptable as a template to me. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.